-
We will be taking the server down at approximately 3:30 AM ET on Wednesday, 10/8/25. We have a hard drive that is in the early stages of failure and this is necessary to prevent data loss. We hope to be back up and running quickly, however this process could take some time.
-
This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
9/11 - Did the Towers Fall At Free-Fall Speeds? [W:912, 927:2293]
- Thread starter Khayembii Communique
- Start date
- Joined
- Jan 29, 2012
- Messages
- 2,673
- Reaction score
- 565
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Other
Re: 9/11 - Did the Towers Fall At Free-Fall Speeds? [W:912, 927]
No, you are just not smart enough to figure out that it is alive.
YOU mentioned mathematics but then haven't provided any, like using the word is an indication of your intelligence.
psik
No, you are just not smart enough to figure out that it is alive.
YOU mentioned mathematics but then haven't provided any, like using the word is an indication of your intelligence.
psik
- Joined
- Sep 22, 2013
- Messages
- 3,514
- Reaction score
- 2,448
- Location
- Moss Vale, NSW, AU
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
Re: 9/11 - Did the Towers Fall At Free-Fall Speeds? [W:912, 927]
It is well beyond mortality. Even the bones must be dry and scattered.
"Dem bones dem bones, dem dry bones Oh hear de word ob De Lawd..."
It is well beyond mortality. Even the bones must be dry and scattered.
"Dem bones dem bones, dem dry bones Oh hear de word ob De Lawd..."
CATiwampus
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 2, 2014
- Messages
- 708
- Reaction score
- 156
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Other
Re: 9/11 - Did the Towers Fall At Free-Fall Speeds? [W:912, 927]
Just an observation ( & this must be totally obvious to many )
one debunker type insists that the "collapse" of the towers & 7
bears no resemblance at all to CD, and yet another thinks that
the appearance is indistinguishable from CD, however no explosives
were needed to accomplish the destruction of the building because
there was an aircraft crash & fire.
So now please somebody tell me if you can,
is it to be expected that an aircraft crash & fire
does the equivalent job of weeks of research into the structure
& precision placed charges to cut & remove key structural elements?
Just an observation ( & this must be totally obvious to many )
one debunker type insists that the "collapse" of the towers & 7
bears no resemblance at all to CD, and yet another thinks that
the appearance is indistinguishable from CD, however no explosives
were needed to accomplish the destruction of the building because
there was an aircraft crash & fire.
So now please somebody tell me if you can,
is it to be expected that an aircraft crash & fire
does the equivalent job of weeks of research into the structure
& precision placed charges to cut & remove key structural elements?
Mark F
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Jul 14, 2013
- Messages
- 8,814
- Reaction score
- 3,835
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian
Re: 9/11 - Did the Towers Fall At Free-Fall Speeds? [W:912, 927]
Not quite accurate.
I do not recall any dubunker for example claiming the collapse of 7 World Trade in no way resembles a CD. There are of course going to be many similarities because - as has been frequently pointed out - the major difference between CD and natural collapse (by whatever mechanism) is the initiator. Either way it is still gravity doing the lions share of the work.
Fire is one of the most destructive forces known to man - responsible for untold death and destruction over the centuries. Fire can and has destroyed entire cities. It isn't exactly difficult to grasp how fire can destroy one building, particularly a building whose structure depends on a material notoriously susceptible to fire.
I would argue there is nothing hugely precise about the collapse of any structure on 9/11. I would also point out AGAIN that the collapse of structures on 9/11 was incidental to the success of the plan so your fixation on that one aspect to the exclusion of all others is a bit puzzling.
What you need to do, what you have been repeatedly asked to do and what you refuse to do is offer up some sort of viable hypothesis for CD at ANY of the WTC towers. That includes how it was done, who did it and why WITH supporting evidence. Instead all we get from you are the same blatantly false claims of "free-fall" and " uniform collapse" which are as meaningless as they are untrue. If you actually tried to put together a plausible hypothesis for CD you would eventually reach the inescapable conclusion that CD as an explanation for the collapse of any building on 9/11 is ridiculous. It is simply impossible to come up with a comprehensive, plausible, evidence-based hypothesis for CD and this is because there was no CD.
Not quite accurate.
I do not recall any dubunker for example claiming the collapse of 7 World Trade in no way resembles a CD. There are of course going to be many similarities because - as has been frequently pointed out - the major difference between CD and natural collapse (by whatever mechanism) is the initiator. Either way it is still gravity doing the lions share of the work.
Fire is one of the most destructive forces known to man - responsible for untold death and destruction over the centuries. Fire can and has destroyed entire cities. It isn't exactly difficult to grasp how fire can destroy one building, particularly a building whose structure depends on a material notoriously susceptible to fire.
I would argue there is nothing hugely precise about the collapse of any structure on 9/11. I would also point out AGAIN that the collapse of structures on 9/11 was incidental to the success of the plan so your fixation on that one aspect to the exclusion of all others is a bit puzzling.
What you need to do, what you have been repeatedly asked to do and what you refuse to do is offer up some sort of viable hypothesis for CD at ANY of the WTC towers. That includes how it was done, who did it and why WITH supporting evidence. Instead all we get from you are the same blatantly false claims of "free-fall" and " uniform collapse" which are as meaningless as they are untrue. If you actually tried to put together a plausible hypothesis for CD you would eventually reach the inescapable conclusion that CD as an explanation for the collapse of any building on 9/11 is ridiculous. It is simply impossible to come up with a comprehensive, plausible, evidence-based hypothesis for CD and this is because there was no CD.
CATiwampus
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 2, 2014
- Messages
- 708
- Reaction score
- 156
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Other
Re: 9/11 - Did the Towers Fall At Free-Fall Speeds? [W:912, 927]
Free-Fall and Uniform Collapse
are concepts embraced by many experts,
however, rather than turn this into a battle of experts.
I'll simply recognize that you see it differently than I
and we disagree about the basic definitions about what happened.
so be it.
Eventually it will get sorted out,
if only by historians in a future century.
Free-Fall and Uniform Collapse
are concepts embraced by many experts,
however, rather than turn this into a battle of experts.
I'll simply recognize that you see it differently than I
and we disagree about the basic definitions about what happened.
so be it.
Eventually it will get sorted out,
if only by historians in a future century.
Mark F
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Jul 14, 2013
- Messages
- 8,814
- Reaction score
- 3,835
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian
Re: 9/11 - Did the Towers Fall At Free-Fall Speeds? [W:912, 927]
Name one not associated with AE911T.
"Experts" make no difference. Experts can be and often are wrong. Only thing that matters is what happened. There was no free-fall of the building in the case of the WTC Twin Towers (OP of this thread). There was no free-fall of the building in the case of 7 World Trade, only of one measured point on the un-braced exterior curtain wall which even exceeded G for a short period - the building having of course already collapsed behind it. The only idiot in the universe who thinks free-fall = CD is a retired high-school teacher who is demonstrably dishonest and definately motivated by a specific agenda. There is zero support for free-fall = CD in the real world.
There was no uniform collapse and even if there were, so what? It has been explained and demonstrated to you how obviously wrong this is many times. You cling to it anyway. This means you are either deliberately dishonest yourself or just being exceedingly thick. Either way its a loser argument that is guaranteed to get you nowhere because everyone else sees it for how false it is. If you want to up your game I suggest you move on from such guaranteed loser claims.
If you want to continue pushing CD for any building you have to do a much better job than endless repetition of two false claims that do nothing to prove CD. Do what I did and try to figure out how a CD would work.
http://www.debatepolitics.com/consp...gs-7-world-trade-center-2.html#post1063050757
This was all sorted out on 9/11/2001. There is no mystery into who caused the events of 9/11 and why and why the damage is what it was. Only a tiny fringe minority refuse to accept reality because they are more interested in promoting whatever ideological/political agenda, and refuse to or are unable to accept reasoned explanations.
Name one not associated with AE911T.
"Experts" make no difference. Experts can be and often are wrong. Only thing that matters is what happened. There was no free-fall of the building in the case of the WTC Twin Towers (OP of this thread). There was no free-fall of the building in the case of 7 World Trade, only of one measured point on the un-braced exterior curtain wall which even exceeded G for a short period - the building having of course already collapsed behind it. The only idiot in the universe who thinks free-fall = CD is a retired high-school teacher who is demonstrably dishonest and definately motivated by a specific agenda. There is zero support for free-fall = CD in the real world.
There was no uniform collapse and even if there were, so what? It has been explained and demonstrated to you how obviously wrong this is many times. You cling to it anyway. This means you are either deliberately dishonest yourself or just being exceedingly thick. Either way its a loser argument that is guaranteed to get you nowhere because everyone else sees it for how false it is. If you want to up your game I suggest you move on from such guaranteed loser claims.
If you want to continue pushing CD for any building you have to do a much better job than endless repetition of two false claims that do nothing to prove CD. Do what I did and try to figure out how a CD would work.
http://www.debatepolitics.com/consp...gs-7-world-trade-center-2.html#post1063050757
This was all sorted out on 9/11/2001. There is no mystery into who caused the events of 9/11 and why and why the damage is what it was. Only a tiny fringe minority refuse to accept reality because they are more interested in promoting whatever ideological/political agenda, and refuse to or are unable to accept reasoned explanations.
- Joined
- Jan 29, 2012
- Messages
- 2,673
- Reaction score
- 565
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Other
Re: 9/11 - Did the Towers Fall At Free-Fall Speeds? [W:912, 927]
Oh, I forgot. Gravity is irrelevant to suspension bridges.
psik
Oh, I forgot. Gravity is irrelevant to suspension bridges.
psik
CATiwampus
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 2, 2014
- Messages
- 708
- Reaction score
- 156
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Other
Re: 9/11 - Did the Towers Fall At Free-Fall Speeds? [W:912, 927]
in other words, membership in AE911T is an automatic discredit?
also, may I cite that by keeping silent the vast majority of Engineers
have not publicly sided with either camp, but if the sample represented
by AE911T is any indication, there are some ( as yet unknown numbers )
engineers who are of the opinion that the official explanation of 9/11 is wrong.
Really, not so much, the population is divided on this issue and
your statement of "everyone" is over the top.
Like I have said, I know that I'm not going to persuade you on this subject,
however I can only hope that a few lurkers may read and take away some information.
in other words, membership in AE911T is an automatic discredit?
also, may I cite that by keeping silent the vast majority of Engineers
have not publicly sided with either camp, but if the sample represented
by AE911T is any indication, there are some ( as yet unknown numbers )
engineers who are of the opinion that the official explanation of 9/11 is wrong.
Really, not so much, the population is divided on this issue and
your statement of "everyone" is over the top.
Like I have said, I know that I'm not going to persuade you on this subject,
however I can only hope that a few lurkers may read and take away some information.
Mark F
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Jul 14, 2013
- Messages
- 8,814
- Reaction score
- 3,835
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian
Re: 9/11 - Did the Towers Fall At Free-Fall Speeds? [W:912, 927]
In and of itself no. But they suffer a serious credibility deficit not least of which because they represent but a tiny fraction of a tiny fraction of a lunatic fringe and their conclusions and claims are not shared by the overwhelming majority of structural engineers and physicists. What little original research a just a few AE911T members do is demonstrably faulty. But if one of the 3 or 4 people they have doing any actual research were to state something that is factual it would still be factual.
Doesn't do much good if their fundamental premise is faulty. But since the primary goal of AE911T is perpetual fundraising what does it really matter?
Cite what? That is a bare assertion, not a citation. I would counter argue that a far more plausible explanation is the overwhelming majority of relevant professionals find nothing to fault in the fundamental conclusion of fire-induced collapse and thus see no need to speak up. There are several million active A&E's in just the U.S. alone. AE911T's petition signers (and signing their petition by no way proves they actually believe there was CD, only that they think it requires further investigation) represent a fraction of a percent of that number. It's actually only a fraction of the lunatic fringe which one would think should be at least 2%.
It isn't just me. You aren't going to persuade anyone since your entire case rests on two demonstrably false claims, zero physical evidence and a clear case of ideological bias.
In and of itself no. But they suffer a serious credibility deficit not least of which because they represent but a tiny fraction of a tiny fraction of a lunatic fringe and their conclusions and claims are not shared by the overwhelming majority of structural engineers and physicists. What little original research a just a few AE911T members do is demonstrably faulty. But if one of the 3 or 4 people they have doing any actual research were to state something that is factual it would still be factual.
Doesn't do much good if their fundamental premise is faulty. But since the primary goal of AE911T is perpetual fundraising what does it really matter?
Cite what? That is a bare assertion, not a citation. I would counter argue that a far more plausible explanation is the overwhelming majority of relevant professionals find nothing to fault in the fundamental conclusion of fire-induced collapse and thus see no need to speak up. There are several million active A&E's in just the U.S. alone. AE911T's petition signers (and signing their petition by no way proves they actually believe there was CD, only that they think it requires further investigation) represent a fraction of a percent of that number. It's actually only a fraction of the lunatic fringe which one would think should be at least 2%.
It isn't just me. You aren't going to persuade anyone since your entire case rests on two demonstrably false claims, zero physical evidence and a clear case of ideological bias.
- Joined
- Sep 22, 2013
- Messages
- 3,514
- Reaction score
- 2,448
- Location
- Moss Vale, NSW, AU
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
Re: 9/11 - Did the Towers Fall At Free-Fall Speeds? [W:912, 927]
Take any high profile contentious issue and poll for opinions and you expect around 2% to 5% "lunatic fringe" idiocies.
So I would expect AE911 could potentially attract THAT 2>>5% PLUS any genuine truthers who by definition are not lunatic fringies.
Maybe it is as simple as a poll merely requires a passive response - the pollsters contact you - whereas AE911 petition requires a positive act by the petition signers.
Dunno the reasons and I'm not losing sleep over it but still it is intriguing.
That is an aspect that continues to intrigue me.
Take any high profile contentious issue and poll for opinions and you expect around 2% to 5% "lunatic fringe" idiocies.
So I would expect AE911 could potentially attract THAT 2>>5% PLUS any genuine truthers who by definition are not lunatic fringies.
Maybe it is as simple as a poll merely requires a passive response - the pollsters contact you - whereas AE911 petition requires a positive act by the petition signers.
Dunno the reasons and I'm not losing sleep over it but still it is intriguing.
One of the two big strategic errors of the truth movement - basing their case on false claims. The second one IMO - the AE911 strategic error - basing claims for review of political mischief on false technical claims.
CATiwampus
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 2, 2014
- Messages
- 708
- Reaction score
- 156
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Other
Re: 9/11 - Did the Towers Fall At Free-Fall Speeds? [W:912, 927]
Please bear with me while I attempt to be perfectly clear about this.
There are documented cases of controlled demolitions gone wrong,
and in going wrong, very often this means incomplete demolition of the building.
As with any complex operation, there are a multitude of things that can go wrong
and indeed be "show stoppers" and really one way to get it totally right.
Now lets consider the destruction of the twin towers, complete destruction is
in and of itself a clue. because if the buildings were not completely destroyed
it would add credibility to the official story, the fact of complete destruction is
a smoking gun. To have an airliner crash and fire, do exactly the same thing
as would be accomplished by careful engineering study of the structure followed
by carefully planting explosives, and then setting off said explosives in sequence
to achieve the result.
So in a nutshell, the total destruction of the towers & 7 points to Controlled Demolition.
Also, I would like to ask of the people who say that Chandler's work is somehow lacking
in good science, please, by all means put fourth your argument. and indeed if you believe
you have the ammo for it, go after Johnathan Cole's license, ( this should be a good one ...
I'll make some popcorn )
Fact is Gage was accused of running a cult and people tried to get him banned from AIA
( not happening )
However, if you can make a case that what Chandler presents is "bad science"
Please bring it on.........
Please bear with me while I attempt to be perfectly clear about this.
There are documented cases of controlled demolitions gone wrong,
and in going wrong, very often this means incomplete demolition of the building.
As with any complex operation, there are a multitude of things that can go wrong
and indeed be "show stoppers" and really one way to get it totally right.
Now lets consider the destruction of the twin towers, complete destruction is
in and of itself a clue. because if the buildings were not completely destroyed
it would add credibility to the official story, the fact of complete destruction is
a smoking gun. To have an airliner crash and fire, do exactly the same thing
as would be accomplished by careful engineering study of the structure followed
by carefully planting explosives, and then setting off said explosives in sequence
to achieve the result.
So in a nutshell, the total destruction of the towers & 7 points to Controlled Demolition.
Also, I would like to ask of the people who say that Chandler's work is somehow lacking
in good science, please, by all means put fourth your argument. and indeed if you believe
you have the ammo for it, go after Johnathan Cole's license, ( this should be a good one ...
I'll make some popcorn )
Fact is Gage was accused of running a cult and people tried to get him banned from AIA
( not happening )
However, if you can make a case that what Chandler presents is "bad science"
Please bring it on.........
Mark F
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Jul 14, 2013
- Messages
- 8,814
- Reaction score
- 3,835
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian
Re: 9/11 - Did the Towers Fall At Free-Fall Speeds? [W:912, 927]
Yes, which proves CD is a tricky and risky business not to be undertaken lightly (ie: would hardly be the tool of choice in a false flag/inside job operation) - which begs the question why it would need to be controlled or why any demolition was necessary at all? I don't expect you or anyone else will answer that anytime soon.
Anyway, please continue.
Complete destruction of any structure on 9/11 is irrelevant to the validity of the official story. The official story remains true regardless of what happens to any buildings. You need to get over this tunnel vision you have of 9/111 being about destroying buildings.
Your entire argument is premised on the assumption that complete destruction of any building was either required or intended. I would submit it was not. The goal was to create panic and terror and influence behavior. Destruction of property was incidental to that goal and any amount of destruction would have achieved the desired goal.
Well, that's what happened. Of course a Boeing 757 travelling at speeds in excess of 500 mph with a heavy fuel load is equivalent to about a ton of explosives and we know explosives can destroy buildings. But it wasn't just airplane impacts was it? It was the damage inflicted by the impact plus the damage from subsequent fires over time that doomed the Twin Towers, causing the gradual degradation and subsequent failure of the structure at the impact points as observed.
Crashing an airplane is cheap and easy. Large scale terror and destruction are absolutely assured no matter what else happens. As you said yourself CD is tricky, risky and complicated not even including the complicating scripting and choreography required to pull off whatever inside job you think happened. If you could ever be bothered to someday work out exactly what this alleged inside job was, who did it and how you might figure out just how ridiculous the whole idea is.
Rubbish. CD requires a means, motive and opportunity supported by evidence, not personal incredulity. You have met none of the requirements for proving CD. You have zero evidence and no witnesses. You have no suspects. You can not explain how it was done or why. Your entire claim rests on it happened therefore it must have been intended and necessary and I don't think airplanes could do it.
That is not going to get you very far.
This is a subject deserving of its own thread - but it also misses the point. You are making the claim here therefore you should be telling us why Chandler got it right instead of reversing the burden of proof and having us do your thinking for you.
Yes, which proves CD is a tricky and risky business not to be undertaken lightly (ie: would hardly be the tool of choice in a false flag/inside job operation) - which begs the question why it would need to be controlled or why any demolition was necessary at all? I don't expect you or anyone else will answer that anytime soon.
Anyway, please continue.
Complete destruction of any structure on 9/11 is irrelevant to the validity of the official story. The official story remains true regardless of what happens to any buildings. You need to get over this tunnel vision you have of 9/111 being about destroying buildings.
Your entire argument is premised on the assumption that complete destruction of any building was either required or intended. I would submit it was not. The goal was to create panic and terror and influence behavior. Destruction of property was incidental to that goal and any amount of destruction would have achieved the desired goal.
Well, that's what happened. Of course a Boeing 757 travelling at speeds in excess of 500 mph with a heavy fuel load is equivalent to about a ton of explosives and we know explosives can destroy buildings. But it wasn't just airplane impacts was it? It was the damage inflicted by the impact plus the damage from subsequent fires over time that doomed the Twin Towers, causing the gradual degradation and subsequent failure of the structure at the impact points as observed.
Crashing an airplane is cheap and easy. Large scale terror and destruction are absolutely assured no matter what else happens. As you said yourself CD is tricky, risky and complicated not even including the complicating scripting and choreography required to pull off whatever inside job you think happened. If you could ever be bothered to someday work out exactly what this alleged inside job was, who did it and how you might figure out just how ridiculous the whole idea is.
Rubbish. CD requires a means, motive and opportunity supported by evidence, not personal incredulity. You have met none of the requirements for proving CD. You have zero evidence and no witnesses. You have no suspects. You can not explain how it was done or why. Your entire claim rests on it happened therefore it must have been intended and necessary and I don't think airplanes could do it.
That is not going to get you very far.
This is a subject deserving of its own thread - but it also misses the point. You are making the claim here therefore you should be telling us why Chandler got it right instead of reversing the burden of proof and having us do your thinking for you.
- Joined
- Jan 29, 2012
- Messages
- 2,673
- Reaction score
- 565
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Other
Re: 9/11 - Did the Towers Fall At Free-Fall Speeds? [W:912, 927]
Here is an interesting demolition failure from years before 9/11.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6BZTfBgf-0U
Why didn't it crush up like Bazant talks about?
psik
Here is an interesting demolition failure from years before 9/11.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6BZTfBgf-0U
Why didn't it crush up like Bazant talks about?
psik
Mark F
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Jul 14, 2013
- Messages
- 8,814
- Reaction score
- 3,835
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian
Re: 9/11 - Did the Towers Fall At Free-Fall Speeds? [W:912, 927]
What does this have to do with the Twin Towers?
What does this have to do with the Twin Towers?
- Joined
- Jan 17, 2014
- Messages
- 7,544
- Reaction score
- 1,503
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
Re: 9/11 - Did the Towers Fall At Free-Fall Speeds? [W:912, 927]
now thats a good one!
sure trashes the debunkers theories of the towers disintegration.
Have to laugh at the way it freefell then stopped! LMAO
now thats a good one!
sure trashes the debunkers theories of the towers disintegration.
Have to laugh at the way it freefell then stopped! LMAO
Mark F
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Jul 14, 2013
- Messages
- 8,814
- Reaction score
- 3,835
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian
Re: 9/11 - Did the Towers Fall At Free-Fall Speeds? [W:912, 927]
Did you measure the speed at which it collapsed? Did it achieve G and for how long? And how does this one event prove anything about 9/11 (other than CD is a risky choice for an inside job) since the size of the building, method of construction and method of destruction are all completely different?
Did you measure the speed at which it collapsed? Did it achieve G and for how long? And how does this one event prove anything about 9/11 (other than CD is a risky choice for an inside job) since the size of the building, method of construction and method of destruction are all completely different?
- Joined
- Jan 17, 2014
- Messages
- 7,544
- Reaction score
- 1,503
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
Re: 9/11 - Did the Towers Fall At Free-Fall Speeds? [W:912, 927]
nothing on the planet can achieve "g" without some form of human intervention, that is a ridiculous question for anyone with physics knowledge to ask.
The physics hasnt changed however.
nothing on the planet can achieve "g" without some form of human intervention, that is a ridiculous question for anyone with physics knowledge to ask.
The physics hasnt changed however.
Mark F
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Jul 14, 2013
- Messages
- 8,814
- Reaction score
- 3,835
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian
Re: 9/11 - Did the Towers Fall At Free-Fall Speeds? [W:912, 927]
So if an African Swallow is carrying a Coconut and drops it and the Coconut achieves G where is the human intervention?
Or if a rock falls off a cliff?
And note: You still did not answer my question. You claimed the building in Sadling's video achieved "free-fall". On what basis do you make this claim or did you just make that up?
So if an African Swallow is carrying a Coconut and drops it and the Coconut achieves G where is the human intervention?
Or if a rock falls off a cliff?
And note: You still did not answer my question. You claimed the building in Sadling's video achieved "free-fall". On what basis do you make this claim or did you just make that up?
Mark F
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Jul 14, 2013
- Messages
- 8,814
- Reaction score
- 3,835
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian
Re: 9/11 - Did the Towers Fall At Free-Fall Speeds? [W:912, 927]
Listen. In order to maintain air-speed velocity, a swallow needs to beat its wings forty-three times every second, right? :mrgreen:
Listen. In order to maintain air-speed velocity, a swallow needs to beat its wings forty-three times every second, right? :mrgreen:
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jan 29, 2012
- Messages
- 2,673
- Reaction score
- 565
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Other
Re: 9/11 - Did the Towers Fall At Free-Fall Speeds? [W:912, 927]
Not enough data to tell for certain. Just timing it with the video and not checking individual frames the fall time was at most 3 seconds. If you just watch the video you can see it slowing down during part of the last second. But 3 seconds of free fall is a distance of 145 feet. It looks like 9 stories got destroyed. 9 stories at 10 ft each would be 90 feet and, at 12 would be 108. So either it reached free fall part of the time or came very close.
So far I have not found more detailed data on the building. But if it was only 21 stories and 10,000 tons it should not have been as strong as the lower 50 stories of the WTC.
psik
Not enough data to tell for certain. Just timing it with the video and not checking individual frames the fall time was at most 3 seconds. If you just watch the video you can see it slowing down during part of the last second. But 3 seconds of free fall is a distance of 145 feet. It looks like 9 stories got destroyed. 9 stories at 10 ft each would be 90 feet and, at 12 would be 108. So either it reached free fall part of the time or came very close.
So far I have not found more detailed data on the building. But if it was only 21 stories and 10,000 tons it should not have been as strong as the lower 50 stories of the WTC.
psik
Last edited:
- Joined
- Sep 24, 2013
- Messages
- 1,816
- Reaction score
- 406
- Location
- A backstreet
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Other
Re: 9/11 - Did the Towers Fall At Free-Fall Speeds? [W:912, 927]
Could you point me toward the video I posted? I've gone back five pages and found nothing.
Could you point me toward the video I posted? I've gone back five pages and found nothing.
Mark F
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Jul 14, 2013
- Messages
- 8,814
- Reaction score
- 3,835
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian
Re: 9/11 - Did the Towers Fall At Free-Fall Speeds? [W:912, 927]
I have. It was concrete, not steel frame construction.
And oh yeah, you can hear the explosives going off before the building goes down - just like every other explosive CD and unlike the Twin Towers or Building 7. So why are we still talking about CD? No one has presented evidence for CD nor a plausible case for explosive CD. 12+ years on, still waiting.
Just for amusement:
Trowbridge Estate Demolition 1985 - YouTube
I have. It was concrete, not steel frame construction.
And oh yeah, you can hear the explosives going off before the building goes down - just like every other explosive CD and unlike the Twin Towers or Building 7. So why are we still talking about CD? No one has presented evidence for CD nor a plausible case for explosive CD. 12+ years on, still waiting.
Just for amusement:
Trowbridge Estate Demolition 1985 - YouTube